Mapes v. Unum Group

W.D. Washington

Mapes v. Unum Group

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided March 9, 2020·No. 3:18-cv-05724·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA RANDALL C. MAPES, a married man, CASE NO. C18-5724 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE v. UNUM GROUP, a foreign corporation, UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a foreign corporation; and PROVIDENT LIFE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Randall C. Mapes’s (“Mapes”) motion for reconsideration on issue of attorney’s fees and costs. Dkt. 57. On February 20, 2020, the Court denied both Mapes’ and Defendants Unum Group, Unum Life Insurance Company of America, and Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company’s (“Unum”) motions for judgment on the record, Dkts. 28, 32, and remanded to Unum. Dkt. 54. On March 3, 2020, Mapes filed the instant motion for reconsideration on the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. Dkt. 57. Mapes argues that the Court’s remand to Unum with instructions represents “some degree of success on the merits” under authorities interpreting Hardt v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010) and requests

permission to submit a motion for the amount of his attorney’s fees and costs. As the Court did not previously consider these authorities, neither party having brought them to the Court’s attention, the Court requests a response from Unum. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, after finding a claimant satisfies the Hardt threshold, the district court “must consider” the five factors articulated in Hummell v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., 643, F.2d 446, 453 (9th Cir. 1980) in determining whether to award fees.

Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan, 608 F.3d 1118, 1119 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court understands that Mapes likely intends to address this issue in a motion for fees if the Court grants the motion for reconsideration. However, as some discussion of this issue may assist the Court in deciding the motion for reconsideration, Unum may choose to address it in response and the Court will also permit Mapes to file a reply.

Any response shall be filed no later than March 20, 2020. Any reply shall be filed no later than March 25, 2020. The Clerk shall renote Mapes’s motion for consideration on the Court’s March 25, 2020 calendar. Dated this 9th day of March, 2020. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA RANDALL C. MAPES, a married man, CASE NO. C18-5724 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE v. UNUM GROUP, a foreign corporation, UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a foreign corporation; and PROVIDENT LIFE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Randall C. Mapes’s (“Mapes”) motion for reconsideration on issue of attorney’s fees and costs. Dkt. 57. On February 20, 2020, the Court denied both Mapes’ and Defendants Unum Group, Unum Life Insurance Company of America, and Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company’s (“Unum”) motions for judgment on the record, Dkts. 28, 32, and remanded to Unum. Dkt. 54. On March 3, 2020, Mapes filed the instant motion for reconsideration on the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. Dkt. 57. Mapes argues that the Court’s remand to Unum with instructions represents “some degree of success on the merits” under authorities interpreting Hardt v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010) and requests

permission to submit a motion for the amount of his attorney’s fees and costs. As the Court did not previously consider these authorities, neither party having brought them to the Court’s attention, the Court requests a response from Unum. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, after finding a claimant satisfies the Hardt threshold, the district court “must consider” the five factors articulated in Hummell v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., 643, F.2d 446, 453 (9th Cir. 1980) in determining whether to award fees.

Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan, 608 F.3d 1118, 1119 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court understands that Mapes likely intends to address this issue in a motion for fees if the Court grants the motion for reconsideration. However, as some discussion of this issue may assist the Court in deciding the motion for reconsideration, Unum may choose to address it in response and the Court will also permit Mapes to file a reply.

Any response shall be filed no later than March 20, 2020. Any reply shall be filed no later than March 25, 2020. The Clerk shall renote Mapes’s motion for consideration on the Court’s March 25, 2020 calendar. Dated this 9th day of March, 2020. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge

Mapes v. Unum Group, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Mapes v. Unum Group (Mapes v. Unum Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related